: 2687 
P26 
'opy 1 



MHHttytHNiHH 



" 






THE PARAGUAYAN QUESTION. 



THE ALLIANCE 



B E T W E E N 



y. 



VERSUS 

THE DICTATOR OF PARAGUAY. 

Claims of the republics of peru and Bolivia 
in regard to this alliance. 



Mfe 



as 



NEW YOKK: 

HALLET & BREEN, PRINTERS, 58 & 60 FULTON STREET. 

1866. 



bbs^*- 



W^^ m I > M ffTTTTTTT M f ¥F» V » M f f »f M »»f TFf » »f f fT'l |ffffff|ff ffVf 






fa 






ioitbhuo mayauoa^am hht 



hokaijja a hi 



o:n/ t a- a 



1 

1 



MI! II 18111113 1IIII33M m jm 

YAUOAM'I W flOTATOW 3HT 

AIVlJoH Q'/.A TJH3.4 r iO 80 l" MO ^1/ 

.HDttAUJA 8I.HT OT (IfLAOttfl tfl 






:>DIOY W3H 
ra.ivriv, vio'iMiri oa ^. 86 .aaaTHiHi ,viaa:aa « t&liab 

.aasr 









* T ~rTrm~^ i i m i i i m u m m m i i i i i i i ii h i . I ii uimuumiiiiin 



THE PARAGUAYAN QUESTION. 



THE ALLIANCE 



BETWEEN 



VERSUS 



THE DICTATOR OF PARAGUAY. 



CLAIMS OF THE REPUBLICS OF PERU AND BOLIVIA 
IN REGARD TO THIS ALLIANCE. 



NEW YORK: 

HALLET & BREEN, PRINTERS, 58 & 60 FULTON STREET. 

1866. 



< 



<\ 



V - II 01 7 



? 



4/ 



BRAZIL, 
THE STATES OF LA PLATA 

AND F AttJ^GcTJ A^f ■ 



ORIGIN AND CAUSES OF THE WAR BETWEEN THOSE SOUTH 
AMERICAN STATES AND PARAGUAY. 

The questions of a country, in relation to its international 
rights, are seldom well understood, if they do not affect the 
general interests, and are hut of a secondary importance to 
the great Powers in the working of the foreign policy which 
most immediately concerns them. 

It is not, then, strange that certain organs of the Press in 
the United States should not rightly understand the war 
carried on by Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and Uruguay 
against the present Dictator of Paraguay; the motives which 
le°d those three American States to combine and unite in an 
alliance, offensive and defensive, to repel a common enemy; 
and the end which they proposed to reach by means of this 

"^necessary to go back to the origin of the struggle, 
and examine the course of events, to explain the , present state 
of affairs, and the new developments which, with the help of 
Divine Providence, and for the good of mankind, are now 
takin- place in that section of South America. . 

Brazil and the Argentine and Uruguay Republics formed 
an Alliance, on the 27th of August, 1828, to remove all and 
any causes of difficulty in their international relations. 
The articles of this agreement were confirmed and ratified 



in the treaties entered into between Brazil and the aforesaid 
republics on the 12th of October, 1851; and in the treaty 
of ,friendly relations, commerce, and navigation of 7th of 
March, 1856, between the Empire and the Argentine Con- 
federation. 

The violation of the first-named treaty by the iron dicta- 
torship of General Don Juan Manuel Kosas, gave occasion 
for the other treaties and the principles subsequently adopt- 
ed in 1859, to secure the entire and absolute independence 
and sovereignty of the Oriental ' Republic of Uruguay in 
her foreign relations. 

Said treaties establish the equilibrium of the La Plata 
countries, which, according to the declaration of General Lo- 
pez, present Dictator of Paraguay, was endangered on the 
30th August, 1864, by the mere fact that the Government of 
Brazil, with the assent of its other ally, demanded just satis- 
faction from the Government illegally in power at that time 
in Uruguay, for the atrocious offences committed against 
Brazilian subjects there residing, in disregard and in open 
violation of the existing treaties. 

The incident to which we have just alluded, and which 
interrupted for a while the intimate and friendly relations 
between the Empire and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, 
ended, however, very satisfactorily, by the agreement signed 
in Montevideo on the 20th February, 1865, by which the 
alliance between Brazil and the States of La Plata became 
still more firmly established. 

This question solely affected the States already mentioned, 
and did not affect the security or the interests of the Repub- 
lic of Paraguay, which was, in fact, so remote from the thea- 
tre of events, and with which the Empire was in perfect 
peace. 

In the meantime, without the least provocation and with- 
out any previous declaration of war, and in truth, caring 
nought for the equilibrium of those States, General Lopez 
took this difficulty as a pretext for ordering the treacherous 
detention, at Assumption, of a Brazilian steamer, on board 



of which was the President entrusted by the Imperial Go- 
vernment with the administration of the remote and import- 
ant Brazilian Province, of Matto-Grosso ; and, also, used it 
to disguise his real intentions of surprising that Province by 
invasion. x 

The manifesto addressed on the 26th of January of last 
year by the Brazilian Government, through its Minister in 
Buenos Ayres, to the Foreign Powers, made evident how un- 
just and unheard of was this audacious proceeding on the 
part of the Government of Paraguay. 

To Brazil it is that Paraguay was indebted for the recog- 
nition of her independence by several European and American 
Governments, at a time when her political existence was 
seriously threatened by the dictatorship of General Rosas, 
governor of the Argentine Provinces. 

Many a time since the independence of Paraguay was 
established, has Brazil had cause to demand reparation for 
the continued offences committed against her in despite of 
the most solemn treaties ; she has, nevertheless, always acted 
with the greatest moderation, ever willing to enter into new 
agreements, to settle by friendly means the question of bound- 
aries, and also the free navigation of the entire river from the 
La Plata to the upper Paraguay. 

The last treaty upon these questions is dated February 
28th, 1858. 

From that date to the year 1864, there was a cessation of 
difficulties between the two countries, and just as Brazil was 
flattered with the idea that the two countries were becom- 
ing more united, and their mutual relations more firm, 
Paraguay, during that term of tranquility, was lying in wait 
for the opportunity of invading and perpetrating all manner 
of atrocities against the neighboring Province of Matto-Grosso, 
to decide in this summary manner the question of boundaries 
about which it had never been possible to come to an agree- 
ment, on account of the exaggerated demands of its govern- 
ment, as is proved by all the negociations since the year 
1853. 



The world is still horrified by the acts of barbarity perpe- 
trated in that Province by order of the Dictator of Paraguay, 
without any consideration to age, sex, or helplessness ; entire 
populations being shot down like wild beasts in the rivers 
and forests as they fled from the fury of the enemy. 

Are not these more than sufficient causes to justify Brazil 
in a war which she neither sought nor provoked but accept- 
ed only to recover her rights, to drive the enemy from her 
country, and to avenge the innocent blood of her children 
sacrificed to the whim of the most ambitious of tyrants. 

Exercising her legitimate rights, Brazil then commenced 
hostilities by blockading the ports and the communications 
of Paraguay. These hostilities could not be extended through 
the territory on the left bank of the river Parana, without 
permission from the Argentine Republic, and this permission 
was refused. 

This permission was likewise refused when asked by Para- 
guay, upon which the government of that State, disregarding 
all international rights, invaded the territory in question, 
capturing, also, two Argentine steamers, and occupying, on 
the 13th April of last year, the capital of the Province of 
Corrientes and its surroundings, which then became the 
theatre of the same outrages that had before been committed 
in the Brazilian territory. 

These acts of unexpected hostility compelled the Argentine 
Government, in its turn, to accept the war thus commenced 
against her without warning, and without the least 
provocation on her part, and thus the interests of 
Brazil and of the Argentine Republic became identified ; 
both countries had to avenge the wrongs and offences com- 
mitted against their sovereignty and independence ; and by 
a chain of unforeseen circumstances both were united in that 
glorious campaign whose object is the triumph of civilization 
against barbarism, and whose standard is the great cause of 
humanity. 

The concurrence of General Don Yenancio Flores is ex- 
plained by his former alliance with the Governments of Bra- 



zil and the Argentine Eepublic, and by the unwarranted in- 
terference of the Dictator of Paraguay in the internal affairs 
of the Oriental Republic. 

TREATY OF ALLIANCE OF MAY 1ST, 1865. 

The three Governments, having the same causes of com- 
plaint and the same interests to defend, could not do other- 
wise than unite in their own defense; and to that end, on 
the 1st of May, 1865, they entered into a treaty of alliance, 
which was already in existence de facto, owing to the acts of 
Dictator Lopez. 

Annexed to the treaty is a protocol of the same date, 
which serves as its complement. 

The public has not yet been put in possession of certain 
secret notes, which, without doubt, will explain fully, the 
views and intentions of the high contracting parties at the 
time of signing the said treaty. 

We believe that the most fastidious person will be entirely 
satisfied with the context of the said treaty. 

As the treaty to which we allude has already been pub- 
lished, either through oversight or intentionally — it now 
matters little which — we here transcribe literally the main 
conditions, as they are known to the public, to the end that 
they be better understood : 

"Art. 6. — The allies solemnly bind themselves not to lay 
down their arms unless by common consent, nor until they 
have overturned the actual government of Paraguay [i. e. Lo- 
pez] ; neither shall they separately treat of nor sign any treaty 
of peace, truce, armistice or agreement, whatever, to end or 
suspend the war, except it be mutually agreed to. 

Art. 7. — As the war is not waged against the people of 
Paraguay, but against its government, the allies may admit 
into a Paraguayan legion all the citizens of that nation who 
may wish to aid in the overthrow of said government, and 
will furnish them with whatever they may need, in the form 
and under the conditions that shall be agreed upon. 



8 

Art. 8. — The allies bind themselves to respect the inde- 
pendence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of the republic 
of Paraguay. In consequence, the people of Paraguay shal! 
be enabled to choose whatever government and institutions 
may suit them, without having to submit, as a result of the 
war, to incorporation with any of the allies or having to 
accept the protectorate of any of them. 

Art. 9. — The independence, sovereignity and territorial 
integrity of the republic of Paraguay shall, in accordance 
with the preceding article, be guaranteed collectively by the 
high contracting parties for the term of five years. 

Art. 10. — It is agreed between the high contracting parties 
that the exemptions, privileges or concessions which they 
may obtain from the government of Paraguay shall be com- 
mon to them all — gratuitously, should they be so obtained, 
and upon common conditions, should they be gotten condi- 
tionally. 

Art. 11. — After the present government of Paraguay shall 
have been overthrown, the allies shall proceed to make the 
necessary arrangements with the newly constituted authority 
in order to secure the free navigation of the rivers Parana and 
Paraguay, so that the laws or regulations of said republic 
may not obstruct, impede or tax the transit across, or naviga- 
tion along, said rivers by the merchant or war vessels of the 
allied States bound to points within their respective ter- 
ritories, or within territory which may not belong to Para- 
guay; and they shall require proper guarantees to secure the 
effectiveness of such arrangements, but on condition that 
such arrangements concerning river policy — whether as re- 
gards the aforementioned rivers' or the Uruguay as well — 
shall be drawn up in common accord between the allies and 
whatever other littoral States may, within the period agreed 
upon by the allies, accept the invitation that may be extended 
to them. 

Art. 12. — The allies reserve to themselves the right of 
concerting the most suitable measures to guarantee peace 



9 

with the republic of Paraguay after the overthrow of its 
present government. 

Art. 13. — The allies will, at the proper time, name the 
plenipotentiaries who shall represent them in conference to 
make whatever agreements, conventions or treaties may be 
necessary with the new government that shall be established 
in Paraguay. 

Art. 14. — The allies shall exact from said government 
payment for the expenses caused by this war — a war which 
has been forced upon them; and also reparation and indem- 
nification for the injuries and wrongs done to their public as 
well as to their private property, and to the persons of their 
citizens previous to any express declaration of war; likewise 
for the injuries and wrongs caused subsequently, in violation 
of the principles that govern in the laws of war. 

The Oriental Republic of Uruguay shall, moreover, exact 
an indemnity proportionate to the injuries and wrongs which 
the government of Paraguay has done her in this war, into 
which it compelled her to enter for the defence of her rights 
threatened by said government. 

Art. 15. — By a special agreement it will loe provided for 
the manner and form of the settlements to be made under 
the preceding article. 

Art. 16. — In order to avoid the discussions and wars which 
arise out of questions relating to territorial boundaries, it is 
agreed that the allies shall require of the government of 
Paraguay to make a special treaty with each one to define 
their respective boundaries on the following bases : 

The Argentine Republic shall be separated from the Re- 
public of Paraguay by the rivers Parana and Paraguay, up 
to the point where said rivers touch Brazilian soil, such 
points, in the case of the Paraguay river, being on its right 
bank at the Bahia Negra. 

The Empire of Brazil shall be separated from the Republic 
of Paraguay, on the side of the Parana, by the first river 
below the falls called the Seven Cataracts, which, according 
the new map of Manchez, is the Ygurey, running the line 



10 

from the mouth of the said river Ygurey, along its whole 
course to its source. On the left bank of the river Paraguay 
it shall be separated by the river Apa, from its mouth to its 
source. In the interior they shall be separated by the Mara- 
caju range of mountains, the eastern slopes of which belong 
to Brazil, and the western to Paraguay, between the two 
points at which the shortest straight lines can be drawn 
respectively from the said range to the sources of the Apa 
and Ygurey. 

Art. 17. — The allies mutually guarantee to each other the 
faithful fulfilment of the agreements, conventions and treaties 
that it may be necessary to make with the government that is 
to be established in Paraguay, in accordance with the stipu- 
lations of the present treaty of alliance, which shall remain 
in full force and vigor until those stipulations be respected 
and fulfilled by the Kepublic of Paraguay. 

In order to obtain this result they agree that, in case 
one of the higher contracting parties fails to obtain from 
the government of Paraguay the fulfilment of its agree- 
ment, or that the latter government attempt to annul the 
stipulations agreed to with the allies, the others shall ac- 
tively use their efforts to obtain their fulfilment. Should 
these be useless, the allies shall join together all their means 
to render effective the stipulations made with them. 

Art. 18. — This treaty shall remain a secret until the prin- 
cipal object of the alliance be obtained. 

PROTOCOL. 

Their Excellencies the plenipotentiaries of the Argentine 
Kepublic, of the Oriental republic of Uruguay, and of his 
Majesty the Emperor of Brazil, having convened in tne office 
of Foreign Affairs, have agreed : 

1st, That in execution of the Treaty of Alliance of this 
date, the fortifications of Humaita shall be demolished; and 
it shall not be permitted to erect others of a like nature that 
might impede the faithful execution of said treaty. 



11 

2nd. That, it being one of the necessary measures to 
guarantee a peace with the government which shall be 
established in Paraguay, that there be left in Paraguay 
neither arms nor munitions of war; such as may be found 
there shall be divided in equal parts among the allies. 

3rd. That the trophies or booty which may be taken from 
the enemy shall be divided among the allies capturing the 
same. 

4th. That the commanders of the allied armies shall con- 
cert the measures necessary to carry into effect what is 
herein stipulated/' 

In the stipulations above referred to, there is nothing to 
be wondered at; it is in the interest of all American nation- 
alities that these stipulations should be fully carried out. 

By assisting the Paraguayan people to shake off the ty- 
rant's yoke, the allies open to them the way to progress and 
civilization. 

Raising them from slavery, the Allies substitute for the 
present brutalizing system of servitude, the aspirations of a 
free people. 

There is no design against the independence and sove- 
reignty of Paraguay, the only end being to overthrow a ty- 
rant, whose political existence is inconsistent with the en- 
lightenment of the age. 

The end of the Allies is only to restore the nationality of 
another American people, giving them the peace and security 
constantly threatened by the treachery which is the basis 
of the traditional policy of the present governor of that 
republic. 

Neither is there any design of forcing on that people a new 
government, or of interfering with any form by which they 
may prefer to be governed. 

The independence, integrity, and sovereignty of the Para- 
guayan people is collectively guaranteed to them in all its 
plenitude ; it is not allowed to any of the Allies to exercise 
the least Protectorate over the Republic as a result of the 
war. 



12 

The Allies, far from designing to usurp territories that do 
not rightfully belong to them, are only defending their own 
rights, as we shall hereafter show. 

ANALOGY WITH THE TREATY OF THE QUADRUPLE ALLIANCE 
BETWEEN CHILI, PERU, BOLIVIA, AND ECUADOR, OF 23d 
JANUARY, 1865. 

There is a remarkable coincidence between the clauses of 
Article 8 of the treaty of May 1st, 1865, with the clause of 
Article 2 of the treaty of the quadruple alliance contracted 
by Chili, Peru, Bolivia, and Ecuador, on the 23d of January 
of the same year. 

The end of the high contracting parties in this last-named 
treaty was to provide for their exterior security, to maintain 
peiice among themselves, and to promote other common in- 
terests. 

We cannot here enter into the consideration of the policy 
which dictated the agreements of the Allies; nor discuss the 
question whether these are the best means of making closer 
the ties of friendship and good understanding between the 
differerft nations and governments, with the view of avoiding 
all future war. 

The alliance was entered into to the end that it should 
have its due effect, especially in the cases foreseen in the fol- 
lowing paragraphs : 

" 1st. Should any design be formed to deprive one of the 
high contracting parties of part of its territory, with the 
purpose of holding it, or ceding it to another power. 

2d. Should its form of government, its constitution and 
political institutions be annulled or altered. 

3rd. Should any of the said contracting parties be compelled 
to a protectorate, sale or cession of its territory, or should any 
other acts be committed against its sovereignty and inde- 
pendence." 

This treaty, however, can have no application to the pre- 
sent war provoked and carried on by Paraguay against Brazil 



13 

and the Republics of La Plata, which on their part only repel 
an unjust aggression. 

The Republic of Paraguay, so far as is known, took no 
part in this agreement, and consequently can have no part in 
the rights and obligations proceeding therefrom. 

And even though Lopez should have taken part in it, his 
cause would be defeated by Article 1st., and by the spirit of 
the alliance of 1st May, which tends expressly to put down 
any acts of ambition and usurpation on the part of any of the 
American Powers which shall interrupt that peace which it 
is so important to maintain on this Continent, to secure its 
social improvement, to strengthen its institutions, and to 
place it in an advantageous position against any foreign ag- 
gression. 

PRECEDENT THAT JUSTIFIES THE CONDUCT OF THE ALLIES. 

The treaty of the 1st May, which is attracting so much 
attention in the Kepublics of the Paciiic, is a repetition of 
the one entered into on the 21st of November, 1851, between 
Brazil, some of the Argentine Provinces, and the Oriental 
Republic of Uruguay, against the Governor of Buenos Ayres, 
that government being also inconsistent with the peace, se- 
curity and welfare of the allies. 

The allies solemnly declare in the 1st Article of that treaty, 
that they had no intention of making war on the Argentine 
Confederation, or of interfering in any way with the liberty 
of the people in the exercise of the sovereign rights derived 
from^their laws and treaties, and from the perfect independ- 
ence of the Nation. 

The only end they had in view was to liberate the Argen- 
tine people from the oppression which they suffered, under 
the tyrannical sway of the governor, Don Juan Manuel Rosas, 
and enable them to adopt such form of government as they 
should deem conducive to their own interests, peace and 
friendship towards the neighboring States, and placing them- 
selves on a sure basis, by establishing with them political 



14 

and friendly relations, which are so essential for their mutual 
progress and improvement. 

It will be well, here, to let our attention dwell on the broad 
and generous policy which the allies acted upon at that time, 
and which they are now endeavoring to unfold in the war 
forced upon them by the Paraguayan Kepublic. 

Rosas, the Governor of Buenos Ayres, interposed every 
kind of difficulty to the free navigation of the affluents of 
the river La Plata. 

It was of the utmost importance to make the island of 
Martin Garcia neutral, as by its situation at the mouth of 
the rivers Parana and Uruguay, it commands, and could 
obstruct, if not forbid, the said navigation. 

By the treaties of the 12th of October, 1851, and by 7th of 
March, 1856, concluded after the fall of General Rosas, be- 
tween Brazil and the Oriental and Argentine Republics, that 
island was made neutral, and the free navigation guaranteed 
to the contracting parties. 

The navigation of the rivers Parana and Paraguay has al- 
ways been subjected to the same difficulties by the Govern- 
ment of Paraguay, in that part of the said rivers belonging 
to it. 

By article 11 of the treaty of the 1st May, 1865, the free 
navigation of these rivers has been also guaranteed in such 
manner that no "regulations or laws of Paraguay shall be able 
to hinder, obstruct, or make onerous the passage by these 
waters. 

The guarantee indispensably needed for the said free navi- 
gation is the destruction of the fortress of Humaita. 

Therefore the destruction of that fortress was determined 
on, in the protocol of the same date. - 

The object of this stipulation, -and of others of a like 
nature, was also to put it out of the power of Paraguay to 
repeat her aggressions against the allies whose territory ad- 
joined hers. 

Modern history presents several instances where similar 
means have been taken to secure peace. 



15 

As for the independence and sovereignty of the republic, 
they are not endangered in the least, being, on the contrary, 
expressly guaranteed by the allies collectively, in each and all 
of their treaties and agreements. 

PREJUDICES AGAINST THE POLICY OF BRAZIL. 

The Dictator Lopez is making it appear through the press 
of Europe and America that, in the war undertaken by him, 
his only object is to oppose the encroachments of Brazil. 

These subtle falsehoods, unfortunately, find believers in 
some of the South American States, where the least incident 
serves to revive the ancient rivalries inherited from their 
respective mother countries. 

Whenever any question of boundaries is raised, the artful 
pretensions of Azara are brought up, and, no allowance being 
made for the natural growth and development which has 
altered the boundaries once defined by certain old, and now 
worthless, provisional treaties, it is said that the people of 
Brazil, animated by the spirit of conquest of their ances- 
tors, pretend to extend their dominions beyond the limits 
determined by their uti possedetis at the time of their inde- 
pendence from Portugal, or by treaties where that title is not 
prevailing. 

All the responsibility of a struggle is thus thrown upon 
a government which has always striven to be on good terms 
with its neighbors, has ever been foremost in the desire to 
have the boundary question settled peacefully by diplomatic 
arrangements, and has invariably proceeded in its negocia- 
tions with the utmost moderation, and in the most concilia- 
tory spirit. 

All manner of reproaches are now heaped upon Brazil, 
while she it was who first opened her rivers to all her neigh- 
bors, upon the most liberal principles. 

Hence it is that we see in some of the American journals 
the most erroneous opinions with regard to the views and 



16 

designs of Brazil in entering into the treaty of the 1st of 
May with the Argentine Republic and Uruguay. 

We find these questions thus resolved, through the dis- 
trust excited in the small American States by the monarchical 
form of Government by which Brazil is ruled, although in 
fact her institutions are more essentially American than are 
those of many of those nations. 

Is there in the world a more liberal constitution, greater 
freedom of discussion, a freer Press, or a more perfect general 
liber tv ? 

v 

Even as regards liberty of conscience, the character of the 
Brazilian people give to it the fullest amplitude, notwith- 
standing that the religion of the State is established by the 
Constitution. 

Let us, however, put aside the subject of these rivalries, 
knowing that some day they will be finally destroyed, and 
let us pass on to a few considerations : 

When a country is blest with free institutions, what 
matters it to the community of nations whether the chief of 
that country is a monarch or a temporary president ? 

The grand requisite in a government, in whatever form it 
may exist, is that it shall be the true representative of the 
people, protecting the rights of individuals, and having for 
its rule of conduct the spirit of justice and equality ; in a 
word, the government should be suited to the age. 

Giving to his government the title of Bepublic, Rosas 
called himself the restorer of the laws. The title of Repub- 
lican is also assumed by Lopez, who inflames the superstition 
of his people by the promise of a speedy resurrection if they 
sacrifice their lives at his command, and imperils their souls 
by urging them on to crime. 

What does the political and commercial world gain from 
the existence of despots of this kind, who crush out all free- 
dom in the nationality of their countries, and seek to perpe- 
tuate therein a state of barbarism by cutting it off from con- 
tact with civilized nations ? 

Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and Uruguay won the 



17 

applause of all Christendom by driving from Buenos Ayres 
the founder of the maslwrca (wholesale hanging), and the 
same applause will be bestowed on them if, firmly persever- 
ing in their noble mission, they succeed in driving from 
Asuncion its ferocious despot. 

BASIS FOR SETTLING THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES WITH THE 

EMPIRE OF BRAZIL. 

To obviate the difficulties and wars constantly springing 
from the questions of boundaries, it was determined by Art. 
XVI. of the treaty of the triple alliance that the allies should 
oblige the Government of Paraguay to enter into special 
treaties with each of the Governments severally, upon a cer- 
tain basis. 

The boundaries determined upon that basis are the same 
which were proposed by Brazil, in 1856, in the conferences 
between the plenipotentiaries of both countries, as appears 
from the respective protocols. 

The Government of Paraguay claimed that the bounda- 
ries of the two countries ought to be, on the side of the 
Parana, the Kiver Ivinheima; and on the side of the Para- 
guay, the River Blanco, whose course lies to the north of the 
Apa, these two rivers being united by the mountains of 
Maracaju or Amambahy. 

The Government of the Empire, on the other side, claimed 
that the boundary ought to be by the River Iguatemy and 
by the Apa, and the mountain of Maracaju which divides 
the waters of the Parana from those of the Paraguay. 

To the allegations and specious arguments by which the 
Government of Paraguay urged its exaggerated claims, the 
Government of Brazil opposed the testimony of the treaties 
of 1750 and 1777, the agreements entered into in 1778 by 
the mother countries, and by its well-established possessions 
of the disputed territories. 

The term appointed for the renewal of the negociations 
expired on the 6th of April, 1862. 



18 

Notwithstanding the most ardent wishes of the Empire, 
unavoidable circumstances rendered it impossible to continue 
the discussion of this important subject. 

The boundaries of the Iguatemy river, a little above the 
Igurey, was one of the concessions made by Brazil, solely in 
behalf of peace. 

Now, however, Brazil being forced to the unjust war thrust 
upon her by the Republic of Paraguay, and the solution of the 
question being removed from the Pacific ground on which 
the Government of Brazil has patiently endeavored to main- 
tain it, it has become necessary for her to insist on the titles 
which, in default of possession of each of the contending par- 
ties, are given in Arts. V. and VI. of the treaty of 1850, and 
Arts. VIII. and IX. of the treaty of 1777, which can be con- 
sulted in all the collections published for the use of those 
who interest themselves in these barren and complicated 
questions. 

This is the full explanation of the basis upon which the 
Government of the Empire purposes to settle the question of 
boundaries now pending with the Republic of Paraguay. 

THE BEARING OF THE STIPULATIONS CONCERNING THE QUES- 
TION ALSO PENDING WITH THE REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA. 

The boundary with the Republic of Bolivia will begin at 
the end of the boundary line proposed to the Republic of 
Paraguay, that is to say, from Bahia Negra to .the North, 
and not from the mouth of the Apa in latitude 22° 5', as 
pretended in 1851. 

Bahia Negra, on the right bank of the Paraguay River, 
was recognized in the negociations that took place in Rio de 
Janeiro, in 1856, as the boundary between the two countries 
in that section. 

The same recognition was formally set forth in the special 
protocol drawn up at Asuncion by the respective plenipo- 
tentiaries who signed the convention of the 12th of Februaiw, 
1858, on the true meaning and practical application of the 



19 

treaty of friendship, navigation and commerce of the 6th of 
April in that year. 

This recognition was not intended to invalidate any right 
or titles that might be put forth by the Government of Boli- 
via to the right bank of the Paraguay River, between the 
parallels of 20°, 21° and 22°, that is to say, to the territory 
comprised from Bahia Negra to opposite the river Apa. 

In this matter Brazil acted with the same moderation 
which it had observed towards Peru, in the negociation of the 
treaty of boundaries concluded with that Republic. 

The Province of Maynas, adjoining the Empire, was recog- 
nized as belonging to Peru, on the ground that portions of 
the territory were actually in possession of the Republic. 

The Republics of Ecuador and New Granada also have 
claims upon that territory, and the rights which both or 
either might eventually put forward were reserved in the 
protocal of the negotiations, with the proviso, however, that 
the boundary of Brazil, established on the uti possedetis could 
not be altered. 

Mr. Cruz Benavente, Bolivian Charge d'Affaires at Buenos 
Ayres, on the 22nd of August, 1852, addressed to the Govern- 
ment of the Argentine Confederation, a protest approved by 
his Government, against the treaty of navigation and bound- 
aries formed on the 15th of July of that year, between the 
Republic of Paraguay and the Argentine Confederation, 
urging the rights of his country. 

The protest of the Bolivian agent was based on the asser- 
tion that Bolivia extended on the Western bank of the Para- 
guay River, between 20°, 21° and 22°. 

The Argentine Government answered that protest on the 
24th of the same month, August, in the following terms : 

That the concluding of a treaty with the Government of 
Paraguay could not in any way interfere with the rights 
claimed by the Republic of Bolivia. 

The Government of Bolivia accepted this declaration as 
the explanation of the true meaning of Art. IV. of the treaty 



20 

of boundaries and navigation and her rights remained undis- 
turbed. 

Brazil, while recognizing that she has no right or claims 
of any kind to the western bank of the Paraguay, to the 
south of Bahia Negra, cannot make the same declaration 
concerning the said western bank to the north as far as 16° 
23', or unto the boundary line of Jauru. 

To obtain such a concession, the Bolivian Government 
would have to re-establish the old boundaries of the provinces 
which formed the ancient Viceroyalty of Buenos Ayres, as 
they are defined in the treaties concluded in the last century 
by the Kings of Spain and Portugal; and, moreover, it would 
have to be proven that Brazil was not the only possessor 
of both the banks of the river in that part. 

PRINCIPLES BY WHICH THE TREATIES OF BOUNDARIES ARE 
TO BE REGULATED BETWEEN BRAZIL AND THE SOUTH 
AMERICAN REPUBLICS. 

The Republics of South -America sometimes refer to the 
treaties of 1750 and 1777, and sometimes consider them null 
and void. The truth, with regard to the said treaties, is 
this : 

The treaty of the 13th of January, 1750, was annulled by 
the treaty of the 12th of February, 1761; and after this 
came the war of 1762, which was terminated by the treaty 
of Paris of the 10th of February, 1763, things remaining 
then as they were before. The treaty of the 1st of October, 
1777 followed then, and shared the fate of the one of 1750, 
which it ratified in most of its parts. The uncertainty which 
sprang up when the boundaries were to be defined, prevented 
the recognition from having its full effects; and finally, the 
war of 1801 annulled it for ever, as the treaty of peace sign- 
ed at Badajoz on the 6th of June of the same year, neither 
restored it nor ordered that things should return to their 
state ante helium. 

This, however, does not mean that recourse should not be 



21 

had to the stipulations of those treaties as an auxiliary basis 
on which to determine what was Portuguese territory, and 
what was Spanish territory, and also what were the changes 
in the possessions of each nationality in the lapse of time 
and the course of events. In places where one of two na- 
tions contests the claims of the other, and such claim is not 
determined by effective occupation or material proofs of pos- 
session, that basis can throw light on the matter, and settle 
it at once. 

Brazil has an unquestionable right to all the territory in 
South America, formerly belonging to Portugal, with the 
losses and acquisitions incurred after the treaties of 1750 and 
1777; and in like manner the adjoining States, which were 
formerly colonies of Spain, Own all the territories formerly 
iu possession of that nation, saving only the alterations de- 
termined by their uti possedetis. 

Should this basis be rejected or unheeded, the only arbiter 
would be force, or the convenience of each country. 

Concerning the basis of the claims of the Bolivian Gov- 
ernment in the old question of its boundaries with Brazil, 
there is nothing in it that has not been already discussed 
between the diplomatic agents of the two countries. 

There was a time (1838) when the Government of that 
republic refused to recognise the treaties of 1750 and 1777, 
denying even their existence in the archives of the republic, 
and declaring that it had never given to them the formal 
consent which would have bound it to observe its stipula- 
tions after the transformation of the territories that pre- 
viously belonged to the ancient contracting powers. It was 
only in 1843 that the republic commenced to insist on the 
validity of these treaties ; and m> 1858, still taking from 
them her title, protested against the military posts establish- 
ed by Brazil at Coimbra, Albuquerque, Corumba, Dourados, 
Oncas, Lages, Tremedal (Corixa Grande), Cambara, Pe- 
derneiras, and Registro de Jauru. 

At all events, it is not possible for Brazil to abandon the 



22 

long possession, acquired by succession, in these territories, 
considered as having belonged to the Spaniards. 

The titles held up by Brazil in this complicated question 
of boundaries are the very ones exhibited in the negociations 
with the Oriental Kepublic of Uruguay in 1851; with the 
Argentine Confederation in 1857; with the Eepublic of Para- 
guay on the south since 1843; and with Venezuela on the 
north, and Peru and New Granada on the west. 

Bolivia possesses the insignificant seaport of Cobija, at the 
mouth of the river Salado. and on that account insists on 
having a share in the waters of the Paraguay and Amazonas, 
in the very legitimate interest of having easy egress to the 
ocean, and thus securing more immediate contact with the 
commercial world. 

It is not the fault of the Empire that the Republic of Bo- 
livia does not yet enjoy all these advantages, as it has offered 
to her the same facilities of navigation, through the Brazilian 
rivers, which have already been secured, in the most liberal 
treaties to Peru and Venezuela, ad instar of those entered 
into with the Republics of La Plata and Paraguay, based on 
the principles recognized and proclaimed by the Congress of 
Vienna. 

BASIS FOR SETTLING THE QUESTION OF BOUNDARIES WITH 
THE ARGENTINE REPUBLIC, AND ITS RELATIONS TO THE 
QUESTIONS ALSO PENDING BETWEEN THAT REPUBLIC AND 
BOLIVIA. 

The principles above referred to as regulators of the bound- 
aries between Brazil and the different South American States, 
cannot be equally applied to the boundaries separating the 
different fractions of the ancient Viceroyalties and Captain- 
cies-General into which the Spanish possessions on this con- 
tinent were divided. • 

Paraguay separated from the Viceroyalty to which it be- 
longed in l&llj or ratiaer in 1813, when under the rule of 



23 

Dictator Francia. Bolivia separated from the Viceroyalty of 
Peru in 1825. 

Since that time, vast uninhabited territories have remained 
pro indiviso, through the want of a solid basis on which to 
settle their boundaries among the contending parties. 

It is the want of this basis which has most contributed to 
create the international difficulties between the American 
nations of Spanish origin, which, for the greater part, have 
never found a satisfactory conclusion. 

Such is the position in which the Argentine Republic and 
Paraguay have found themselves until of late ; nor were the 
difficulties settled even in 1852, when Paraguay recognized 
the total separation of Buenos Ayres from the Argentine 
Republic. 

Bolivia lays claim to the territory of the Gran Chaco, on 
the right bank of the Paraguay river; but the discussion of 
this claim, which has heretofore been held with Paraguay, 
after the war, will have to be held with the Argentine Re- 
public. 



CONCLUSION. 



What we have here set forth will suffice to show how 
groundless were the complaints made by the Government of 
Bolivia to the Brazilian Government on the 6th of July, and 
how wrong was the basis of the despatch sent by the Govern- 
ment of Peru to its representative in Buenos Ayres. Of this 
despatch, we must say that we could hardly believe it genu- 



24 

ine, did not we know that diplomacy is, alas! often blinded 
by ignorance, and misled by the misrepresentations of pre- 
judice. 

We submit this to the consideration of the organs of 
the Press of this enlightened country, which, being impar- 
tial in the questions now contested among the South Amer- 
ican nations, and knowing their respective antecedents and 
tendencies, whatever their form of government, will be will- 
ing, as heretofore, to espouse the cause of humanity and 
of the civilization, so much needed on this continent. 

It would be well if the American nations, instead of mak- 
ing such demonstrations as those to which we have refer- 
red, would, as Mr. J. B. Calojeras, an eminent Brazilian 
writer, proposes, agree upon some general principles which 
would contribute to the development of their general strength 
and prosperity. 

The representatives of the American nations would unite 
in a common agreement on the principles of nationality; in 
cases of private international law ; in cases where diffi- 
culties between two or more American nations exist, such 
cases could be referred to the arbitrament of a third Amer- 
ican power, for the avoidance of war; and all other ques- 
tions of a similar nature. 

It would also be much more convenient and useful to have 
a cordial understanding between themselves with regard to 
the means of promoting the increase of the population in their 
immense, fertile, but uninhabited territories; and facilitating 
the direct communications between the same countries. 

The good understanding between the States of America 
can also be considered from a higher standpoint. 

Europe, properly speaking, forms but one part in the 
world, it is a geographical division, and nothing more; it 
is not a political entity. 

It seems, however, that this name means something more; 
that there is a certain moral consolidation between all the 
European nations. 



25 

Many attempts have been made to give a body and physi- 
cal force to this purely moral entity. 

The Universal Monarchy of Charles V. being a failure, as 
was also the predominance of the French Revolution, the 
Holy Alliance became the arbitrator, not only of Europe, but 
of the general policy. 

Monroe was the first to raise his voice against this arbitra- 
ment; his was the first cry for the emancipation of America 
from the predomination of Europe. 

The family of American nations being formed, they need 
a jury to direct their course in the way of peace and progress. 

If the principal nations of the continent would encourage 
some such understanding, the Continent would reap there- 
from more real adavntages than any which could result from 
those incessant conflicts, which daily weaken the several 
members. 

We will also quote the words of a venerable Brazilian, 
who, in 1836, expressed himself as follows : 

" The true greatness of America, and the development of 
American resources are intimately bound together. In 
vain do we behold the wealth which Providence has poured 
out on our country if we lack the energy of manhood. 

" Let the increase of the population be encouraged by 
every means in our power, for that is the surest way to se- 
cure prosperity and peace at home, and to win respect 
abroad." 

As regards the struggle now going on in the Southern part 
of South America, the facts have been entirely misrepre- 
sented. 

No one can deny, however, that it was Lopez who invaded, 
plundered, and desolated territories belonging to the provinces 
of Matto-Grrosso, Corrientes, and Rio Grande, without the 
least provocation on the part of Brazil or the Argentine Re- 
public. 

This act on the part of Lopez can only be explained by 
the mere ambition to obtain by force the disputed territories 



26 

in the first-named of those provinces, the possession of which 
was guaranteed to Brazil by solemn treaties. 

Fortunately, the invasion by the barbarains was repulsed, 
and the plunderers of Bella Vista, the assassins of J. Borja, 
the violators ofwomen at Corrientes were vanquished at Ya- 
tahy, compelled to surrender at Uruguayana, and were driven 
away from the territories which they had stained with their 
crimes. 

In this way have they called down vengeance on their 
country, and the hastily-organized armies of B razil and of 
the Argentine Confederation are now calling Lopez to ac- 
count for the outrages against their countries, which could 
not be left unpunished. 

These are the facts in their true light. 



APPENDIX. 



Since writing the above, we chanced upon the following 
article in the Courrier des Etats Unis, of October 24 of the 
present year, which contains a brief and sensible analysis of 
the unfounded accusations unreasonably launched against 
Brazil, the Argentine Republic, and the Oriental State of 
Uruguay, with regard to the terms of their treaty of Alliance 
of the 1st May, 1865. 

THE PARAGUAYAN WAR. 

u Several journals have made a great noise about the secret 
treaty entered into by Brazil, the Republic of Uruguay and 
the Argentine Republic, to settle the Paraguayan question 
by common consent ; and have erroneously interpreted some 
of the stipulations of the said treaty. These exaggerations 
would deserve no notice, were it not that appearances some- 
what tend to confirm them. 

We propose to examine the triple alliance in detail, to 
show in what spirit it was drawn up, and make known its 
nature and true object ; but, before commencing, we can 
affirm once for all that its stipulations, which have been 
quoted with more or less accuracy, have not the character 
which has been attributed to them, and that they cannot be 
rightly understood without a knowledge of the localities. 

This compact arid the coalition which gave it birth, had 
their origin, not in the ambition and spirit of conquest of the 



28 

allies, but in the unjust pretensions and repeated provocations 
of the Dictator of Paraguay. 

These pretensions actually amounted to an attempt oq his 
part to have himself proclaimed the protector of 4 the States of 
La Plata. In this manner he caused the rupture of the peace 
negociations then pending between the Governments of Mon- 
tevideo and the Ministers of England, Brazil, and the Argen- 
tine Kepublic. 

The rupture, the original cause of the war which is flood- 
ing with blood the banks of the Parana and Paraguay rivers, 
date from the 18th of Jane, 1864. f . 

On the 12th of June, 1864, without making any declara- 
tion of war, Lopez ordered the seizure of the Marquis d'Olin- 
da, a Brazilian steamer, employed as a packet-boat between 
Montevideo and Cubaya, capital of the Brazilian province of 
Matto-Grosso. 

The President of this province was on board of the steamer 
at the time of its seizure, and, with the rest of the passen- 
gers, was thrown into prison. This outrage on the part of 
the Paraguayan Bismark was committed notwithstanding the 
presence, at Asuncion, of the resident minister from Brazil, 
and was a flagrant violation of international law, and of a 
special treaty concluded between Brazil and Paraguay in 
1856. 

Art. XVIII. of that treaty held the following stipulation : 

" That in case of a rupture between these two countries, 
citizens of one of the nations, residing on the territory of 
the other, should retain the right to their property, and 
even continue their businsss, with the full enjoyment of 
their liberty and industry. 

The Brazilian Minister at Asuncion remonstrated, but to 
no purpose. 

He then demanded his passports, but they were refused to 
him, and it was only through the energetic assistance of the 
Minister of the United States, that he was enabled, fifteen 
days later, to make good his escape from Asuncion. 

This transgression of the laws which regulate the relations 



29 

of civilized nations, certainly merited universal condemnation, 
still, however, the Government of the Argentine Kepublic, 
persisted in the strictest neutrality ; when, at the beginning 
of April, 1865, an Argentine vessel, the Salto, was seized at 
Asuncion, and some days after, on the 13th of April, five 
steamers of the Paraguyan squadron entered without warn- 
ing into the harbor of Corrientes, and finding two Argentine 
steamers of war there anchored, the Paraguyans massacred 
the crew of one of the steamers, and seizing both carried them 
to Asuncion. 

Such then are the facts whose grave import cannot be mis- 
taken. And let us remember that this occurred previous to 
the 1st of May, 1865, the date of the treaty of alliance enter- 
ed into by Brazil and the Kepublics of La Plata. 

Does not the mere recital of these acts suffice to prove con- 
clusively that this treaty was not drawn up by the contract- 
ing parties with the view to enlarge their territory, but solely 
for their legitimate defence, and to check the Algerian bar- 
barity of the Dey of Paraguay. 

For our part we have not waited until now to brand them 
as they deserve. 

In the meantime let us consider the value of the assertions 
which form the basis of the claims of certain States which 
are not even neighbors of the territory of Paraguay. 

What is there in common, excepting their origin, between 
the Kepublics of the Pacific and those of the Atlantic ? 

It is true that when, in 1864, Peru desired the Argentine 
Government to join the league formed by the South Ameri- 
can States against Spain, General Mitre declined to depart 
from his unvarying policy of non-intervention. 

Is Peru justified on that account in entertaining any ran- 
cor toward the President of the Argentine Republic ? Be 
it as it may, the Peruvian Government has no call to inter- 
fere in the occurrences which transpire on the Rio de la Plata, 
as its interests are in no way compromised thereby. 



30 

As to Chili, its Government has been wise enough to pre- 
serve to this day the strictest neutrality. 

With regard to Bolivia, her claim has received that atten- 
tion which all just claims will ever receive from so impartial 
and enlightened a man as Mr. Kufino Elizalde, Minister of 
Foreign Affairs of the Argentine Kepublic. 

As to the actual position of General Lopez, his titled pan- 
egyrists may say what they will, and they may publish bul- 
letins of his victories as often as they please, but the public 
cannot help seeing that their hero is constantly losing ground. 
All are acquainted with the savage energy of the Dictator, 
and the fanatical enthusiasm of his soldiers; but, they are 
also too apt to overlook the immense preparations for war 
made by Paraguay during fourteen years, even children 
being forced to enlist. 

On the other hand, the rapidity of travel which is enjoyed 
in Europe is apt to make one forget the almost insurmount- 
able difficulties for carrying on military operations in Amer- 
ica — such as the immense distances to be traversed ; the ab- 
sence of roads; the frequent obstructions in the navigation 
of the rivers; and the necessity of transporting everything, 
even the most indispensable necessaries of life. Only our 
soldiers who have passed through the campaigns of Mexico 
will be able to understand the magnitude of these obstacles. 

Shall Lopez, who has long deserved to be under the ban 
of the nations, mock his neighbors with impunity, as he has 
done successively with France, the United States, England, 
and Brazil ? 

Because he possesses a fortress which he deems impregna- 
ble, shall he with impunity lay waste the territories that 
surround him ? 

We shall not undertake to enumerate here the crimes 
which have made famous the hereditary dictatorship of both 
the Lopez, and shall confine ourselves to the mention of one, 
the most recent. 

The Brazilian town of Uruguayana, situated on the left 
bank of the River Uruguay, had fallen into the power of a 



31 

Paraguayan division numbering 7,000 men, commanded by 
Colonel Estigarribia. 

General Flores, after having overpowered the Paraguayan 
forces on the 15th of August, 1865, at Yatahy, on the. right 
bank of the Uruguay River, then proceeded to place himself 
on the opposite bank, opposite Uruguayana. In September 
of the same year, at the moment when the signal for the as- 
sault was to be given, Estigarribia, the Colonel of the Para- 
guan forces, finding himself before a force greatly superior to 
his own, thought the best thing he could do was to surrender. 

He was treated by General Flores with all the respect due 
to his rank and his misfortune, and was sent to Rio de Ja- 
neiro, where he was allowed full liberty in the city. 

As usual in such cases, Lopez did not fail to wreak his 
vengeance on the family of Estigarribia; the mother and sis- 
ter of the Colonel, the latter aged only eighteen, were given 
up to the brutality of Lopez soldiers, and then thrown into 
prison. 

The sufferings of our citizens established in the States of 
La Plata, and the interruption of business by this dreadful 
war, are also urged as so many arguments against the Allies 
and in favor of Lopez. 

But in fact Lopez has been the sole instigator of the war, 
and it has not been in the power of the Allies to avert it. — 
And now let us ask, are they not performing a sacred duty, 
are they not defending civilization itself, in pursuing the end 
which they have resolved on : the overthrow of a Government 
which offers no guarantee to its neighbors, no security to its 
commerce? 

As for the fortress of Humaita, after its armament was 
completed, did not Lopez refuse to the European Govern- 
ments the renewal of the treaty which secured the free navi- 
gation of those rivers ? Is it not, then, necessary that this 
fortress should be levelled to the ground, since it is a perpe- 
tual menace against the order and liberty established in the 
other States of La Plata ?" 



32 

Is it not, then, to the true interests of our citizens there 
resident to have a lasting peace secured to those countries, 
instead of the false and hypocritical peace which Lopez, ac- 
customed to treachery and the utter disregard of treaties, 
would not fail to violate at the very first opportunity ? 

Our readers will find a more complete analysis in the 
Journal of Commerce of Kio de Janeiro, with regard to the 
protest made against the tenor of the said treaty, by the 
Government of Peru to the Governments of the Allied Pow- 
ers, through Mr. D. Benigno G. Vigil, accredited towards 
them as Charge &' Affaires. 

We call the attention of our readers to this exposition, 
made with all due calmness and carefulness, which contains 
the true explanation of the sole meaning and design of the 
stipulations of the said treaty. 

PROTEST OF THE GOVERNMENT OF PERU AGAINST THE TREATY 
OF THE TRIPLE ALLTANCE FORMED TO CARRY ON THE WAR 
PROVOKED BY PARAGUAY. 

I. 

The National of Buenos Ayres, of August 18, publishes 
the despatch addressed on the 9 th of the preceding month, 
by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Peru, 
to the Peruvian diplomatic agent accredited towards the 
Argentine Republic, Paraguay and Brazil, to protest before 
the governments of those States against the treaty of alliance 
formed by them with the common object of carrying on the 
war to which they have been so unexpectedly provoked by 
the despot who oppresses the Republic of Paraguay, the in- 
tegrity and independence of which, according to the Govern- 
ment of Peru, are threatened by the provisions of the said 
treaty. 

We know not whether the Imperial Government has as yet 
received the notification contained in the dispatch to which 
we refer, neither have we any idea as to what reception it 



33 

will meet with in the councils of the crown. However, since 
this document has been made public by the Argentine press, 
the press of Brazil would be false to patriotism and to duty 
were it to allow it to pass unnoticed, for that document is 
nothing but a mass of mistaken opinions, unfounded fears, 
and exaggerated pretensions, as we shall endeavor to show, 
with all calmness and impartiality, in the brief analysis to 
which we shall here subject it. 

The protest of Peru is made against a treaty which has not 
been officially published, and whose nature and design was 
not known even to those who gave it the irregular publicity 
referred to in said protest. 

That a document whose authenticity is not officially estab- 
lished should be taken as the ground for an act which is like- 
ly to be productive of serious international difficulties, shows, 
to say the least, a strange disregard of prudence, and a want 
of the calm judgment which should be employed in matters 
of such grave importance. 

The condition of secrecy being attached to the treaty 
formed between the Empire of Brazil, the Argentine Repub- 
lic, and the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, it is evident that 
neither the Government of Peru, nor that of any other power 
outside of the Alliance, had the right to demand explanations 
thereon, or even to ask to be made officially acquainted with 
the whole of the said treat}'', the only ones capable of judging 
of the utility and conveniences of that secrecy being its 
au thors. 

But granting, for the sake of argument, that this unoffi- 
cial acquaintance with the document in question did really 
awaken such serious apprehensions in the Government of 
Peru, with regard to Paraguay, as to impel it to ask from the 
allied powers such explanations as might serve to remove 
those apprehensions, were the means which it had recourse 
to the most proper and effective ? 

The Government of Peru and the allies in whose name it 
also speaks, were on good and friendly terms with the Em- 
pire and the Republics of La Plata. Under these circum- 



34 

stances, then, what would have been the most natural and 
proper course ? 

Decidedly, if real apprehensions were excited by the treaty 
of alliance formed by those States to repel the aggressions of 
Paraguay and prevent their repetition in the future, the most 
natural and proper course for the Government of Peru would 
have been to address the allied Governments privately, as is 
customary and indispensable, asking for such explanations as 
it should deem fit and necessary. 

And we are convinced that, if the Government of Peru had 
proceeded in this manner, as it ought certainly to have done, 
unless it purposely seeks some pretext for interfering in the 
war treacherously provoked and barbarously commenced by 
the Paraguayan despot, the Governments of Brazil and of the 
States of La Plata, would not hesitate to give the explana- 
tions which can be asked and given between friends and 
equals, without detriment to their personal rights and dig- 
nity. And unless a conflict has been purposely sought, all 
difficulty would be impossible, as the allies do not entertain 
nor is it possible for them to entertain any designs against 
the independence and integrity of Paraguay. 

The present minister of Brazil, specially appointed to the 
States of La Plata, on entering upon his mission in the Ori- 
ental State of Uruguay, and presenting his credentials to 
the Chief of that Republic, gave utterance to the following 
eloquent and significant words : 

" With her immense area, all-sufficient for her future 
destiny and present activity, Brazil does not cast covetous 
eyes on the adjoining Republics, nor does she aspire to a 
political supremacy which would destroy their sovereignity 
and liberty. A disinterested and sincere friend to all the 
South American nationalities, her truest wish is that they 
shall prosper and have such a sense of dignity as shall pre- 
serve them from subjection to any despotism." 

Such were the words of one of the signers of the treaty of 
alliance, and some months later, Mr. Andres Lemas, repre- 
sentative of another of the parties to the said treaty, on pre- 



35 

sen ting his credentials to H. M. the Emperor, in Kio de 
Janeiro, proclaimed, in that solemn act, the independence and 
integrity of all the existing nationalities as the basis of future 
peace in those regions. 

And shall not these proofs be accepted as evidence that the 
treaty of alliance was meant and understood by the contract- 
ing parties in such a manner as not to interfere with the in- 
dependence and integrity of Paraguay ? 

We have already said, and now repeat, that if private ex- 
planations had been asked, such as can be asked and given 
between friends, all apprehensions that might really have ex- 
isted would have been put to flight ; all difficulty would have 
been avoided. 

But alas ! the Peruvian Government has not chosen to be 
-guided by the dictates of prudence and calm deliberation. 

Founding its complaints on a document of whose authen- 
ticity and entireness it could not be certain, and refraining 
from all previous examination or explanation, it rashly issued 
its protest against the Allied Powers. 

Once launched upon this course the Peruvian Cabinet, in 
order to justify its act, openly constituted itself a judge of the 
private interests of sovereign and independent States ! And 
not satisfied with the role, as it would be thereby confined 
to the letter of the treaty, it has also assumed 'the character 
of advocate for one of the parties, and in accordance with 
that character it distorts the meaning of the stipulations of 
the treaty ; and asjain takes them, thus distorted, and con- 
stituting itself the judge, condemns them ! 

Let us now make a brief examination of the grounds of the 
accusation and give them a fair judgment. 

IS THE TREATY SECRET ? 

The Peruvian Government says that it is allowable to keep 
treaties secret until the time of their execution, but that they 
are always published as soon as the object of the alliance 
commences to have effect. 



36 

Thjs assertion is totally unfounded : history furnishes 
numerous examples to prove the contrary. 

The only judges as to the time or opportunity of publish- 
ing a secret agreement, are the contracting parties themselves, 
as their convenience, their interests and their security are the 
things therein at stake. 

Were this otherwise the equality and independence of 
nations could not exist. 

The Peruvian Cabinet in volunteering the notoriously false 
assertion that secret treaties of alliance are always published 
as soon as their object commences to have effect, establishes 
an entirely new doctrine aggressive to the sovereignty of the 
nations, and tending to deprive them of their sovereign right 

to secure their interests and safety through secret diplomatic 
arrangements. 

Only recently has the existence of an alliance between Italy 
and Prussia against Austria become known, and been subse- 
quently officially acknowledged. 

Even after the object of the alliance commenced to have 
effect the treaty was not published. 

The ends of the alliance were consumated, Austria submit- 
ted to her expulsion from Germany and to the payment of 
the expenses of the war, and even then the treaty was not 
published ! And what is more, Europe, whose equilibrium 
was in question, did not demand the publication of the treaty; 
evidently because Europe respects the right acted upon by 
Prussia and Italy. 

This is international law as it has been recognized and 
acted upon up to the present day. Even should the Peruvian 
Cabinet succeed in altering it, which it could not do without 
the consent of all the other nations, the new law could not 
have a retroactive effect and it would still be undeniable that 
the allies against Paraguay, in stipulating and maintaining 
secresy in their agreement, only acted upon a perfect and 
unquestionable right which the government of Peru cannot 
pretend to deny to them without offending their sovereignty. 



37 

The dispatch which we are now examining says that, 
although the treaty of the triple alliance stipulates and re- 
spests the independence and integrity of Paraguay, it never- 
theless attacks them in several ways : 

Firstly — In the declaration that the war is waged against 
the Government, and not against the people of Paraguay. 

Now, in answer to this, we must call attention to the fact 
that one of the chief circumstances which have lessened the 
evils of war, is this very tendency to make a distinction be- 
tween the government and the people. 

In fact, if the governments of the Pacific, in the actual 
contests with Spain, had been inspired with this humane 
tendency, as it were so much to be desired, it is beyond all 
doubt that the war would not have assumed its present de- 
plorable character. 

How, let us ask, could the peaceful and industrious 
Spaniards, there established, be responsible for the acts of the 
Government of Madrid ? 

Yet we Americans must acknowledg3 with pain that those 
unfortunate Spaniards, though totally innocent of the acts of 
their government, were imprisoned, expelled from the coun- 
try, and ruined, although in their ruin that of hundreds of 
American families were involved. 

Unfortunately the government did not choose to make the 
needed distinction, and consequently cannot escape the 
charge of having been guilty of the most unjustifiable and 
wanton barbarity. 

The distinction of which we speak, frequently employed in 
all ages, has always mitigated the horrors of war, and has 
never caused the destruction of any nationality whatever. 

In order not to weary the reader's attention by a vain dis- 
play of historical facts, we shall quote only a few examples. 
We shall not speak of Europe save only to allude to the in- 
stance of Napoleon I., when, as all know, Europe declared 
against hirn, leaving France in the full enjoyment of her 
independence. 



38 

Let us take our examples from America. 

In the famous struggle with the tyrant Rosas, Uruguay, 
France, England and, finally Brazil, made a distinction be- 
tween the Argentine people" and their tyrant. 

All the manifestoes and treaties of that war invariably 
stipulated — war against the tyrant — alliance with the peo- 
ple which he oppressed. 

This is precisely the distinction which is* now made, and if 
possible with greater reason, in the treaty of the triple alli- 
ance against Paraguay. 

If it is true, as the Government of Peru asserts, that that 
distinction destroys the principles of national sovereignty on 
which the American States are founded, why was it never 
protested against on the different occasions on which it was 
established by different powers, and in different forms, in the 
lengthy struggle against Rosas ? Why was it, on the con- 
trary, tacitly admitted ? Why did Bolivia accept it explicit- 
ly on accepting the war declared against her by Rosas ? 

The Peruvian Government pretends that this distinction 
tends essentially and necessarily to destroy the sovereignty of 
nations ; will it assert that it has destroyed the independence, 
the sovereignty, or the liberty of^the Argentine people ? 

Let us add, however, a more direct example, which with- 
out doubt will be more conclusive for the Government of 
Peru. 

The Peru-Bolivian Confederation being formed by General 
Santa Cruz, Chili declared war — against whom ? — and for 
what end ? 

Making a distinction between the government and the peo- 
ple, she declared war against the protector, Santa Cruz, with 
the express end of destroying the confederation formed be- 
tween Peru and Bolivia. 

Chili was not embarrased by the consideration of allowing 
room for the will of the people of those two countries. While 
declaring the existence of that confederation opposed to her own 
safety, at the same time imposed no further restriction on the 
will of those people than what was needed to secure that safe- 



39 

ty ; and it even appears probable that if those people had 
had the power, they would by their own choice have brought 
about the new order of things thus established. 

Chili then triumphed, as is well known, and Peru and 
Bolivia admitted the doctrine which they now condemn; and 
they not only admitted it but even went beyond it most 
shamefully. 

General Santa Cruz being retained as a prisoner in Chili, 
an agreement was formed by Chili, Peru and Bolivia, on the 
7th of October, 1845, upon the disposal of Ids person. 

In the preamble to the agreement are the following words: 

" The governments of Chili, Bolivia and Peru in the exer- 
cise of their right to secure the safety of the respective coun- 
tries, so long disturbed by the attempts of Don Andres 
Santa Cruz to kindle civil wars, &c, &c, have agreed on the 
following articles : 

Art. I. Don Andres Santa Cruz shall immediately leave 
this country for Europe, where he shall remain six years, 
dating from the day of his departure for a European port ; 
and during that time he shall not return to any part of South 
America without the unanimous consent of the three govern- 
ments of Chili, Bolivia and Peru." 

It is here evidently proved that Chili, Bolivia and Peru 
made a distinction between the government and the people ; 
that the end of that war was to overthroio the government 
and proscribe General Santa Cruz ; and even after his over- 
throw and banishment those republics judged that their right 
of securing their own safety authorized them to dispose of 
the General's person, and accordingly did dispose thereof. 
/ And they so disposed, that even if the people of Bolivia 
should desire again to entrust their government to General 
Santa Cruz, such a desire was rendered of no effect, before- 
hand, by the will of Chili and of Peru. 

How is it then, that the Peruvian Cabinet wonders at, and 
condemns the distinction which it has so freely employed 
whenever its own interests were concerned ? 

General Santa Cruz, that noble soldier of South Ameri- 



40 

can independence, was forbidden to return to any part of 
South America without the unanimous consent of Chili, 
Bolivia and Peru. This Bolivian statesman could not return 
to the service of his country, even had she recalled him, with- 
out the consent of the other two parties to the agreement. 

And can it be possible that those who carried to such an 
extreme the right of securing their own safety, are the very 
ones who now protest against the moderate exercise of that 
right against the Dictator of Paraguay, who, by his barbarity 
and treachery in kindling the war, has forfeited all claim on 
the protection of international law and the general custom of 
civilized nations ? 

In Paraguay the only real entity is the Dictator; he alone 
thinks ; he alone speaks ; he alone acts. 

The people, in time of peace, is a mere machine for produc- 
ing the wealth of the lord of the land ; in time of war it is 
simply a destructive engine controlled by the all-powerful will 
of the Dictator. 

Even if the distinction between governments and the peo- 
ple had never existed before, it would certainly have to be 
exercised now in the question of Paraguay and her down- 
trodden people. That distinction would be inevitable. 

In vain does the Peruvian protest speak of the will of the 
Paraguayan people, of the constitution of Paraguay. 

The whole world knows that in Paraguay there is but one 
will, and but one constitution : the will and the absolute 
power of the Lopez family. 

The chief of that family exercises omnipotence. 

He then, is the only one responsible in Paraguay, for he is 
the only one who resolves and acts. 

It being thus demonstrated, and even with the authority 
of the example furnished by Chili, Peru and Bolivia, that the 
allies only exercised a legitimate right in determining on the 
downfall of a dictator whose power is irreconcilable with the 
peace and safety of their respective countries, the next thing 



41 

which presents itself after the fall of the present government 
is the necessity of substituting it by another one. 

Who is to make this substitution ? 

That is what we shall consider in another article, continu- 
ing our analysis of the Peruvian protest. To-day we shall 
proceed no further, so as not to weary the reader's attention. 



ii. 

Who ought to substitute the Government of the Republic 
of Paraguay, which the triple-alliance is endeavoring to over- 
throw ? 

This was the question with which we ended the first arti- 
cle that we wrote on the Peruvian protest, the analysis of 
which we are going to continue to-day. Since the nationality 
of Paraguay is recognized, it is clear that the Paraguayan 
people, called to political life by the victory of the alliance, is 
the one which ought to choose the new government. 

In this recognition of the right of a liberated nation to 
adopt the institutions which may suit her, and select its own 
government, the Peruvian Cabinet descry a new attack on the 
autonomy of Paraguay. 

But what is it that Peru wants to be done ? 

Does she want that the dictatorship should be made 
heriditary, and that the supreme power should be rendered 
transmissible like a fiducial family inheritance ? 

Does she want to deny the Paraguayan nation the right of 
legislating, and of organizing the public authorities which 
ought to govern the country ? 

In case the stipulations of the treaty were not carried into 
effect, and the government of Lopez should be overthrown, 
there would be no other remedy than to give the people of 
Paraguay a government. 

Is it thus that Peru understands the autonomy of the 
Paraguayan people ? 

The declaration that the said people shall choose for them- 



42 

selves the institutions and government of which they ap- 
prove, is nevertheless the second innovation of which the 
powers who signed the treaty of the Triple- Alliance are 
guilty. 

The other innovations which are revolting to the conscience 
of Americans are the folio win g ; 

1° To guarantee collectively, for five years, to Paraguay 
her sovereignty, independence, and territorial integritj 7 -. 

2° To establish the bases of the adjustment of the future 
boundaries with Paraguay. 

3° That the fortress of Humaita shall be razed to the 
ground, and that no other fortresses of the same kind shall 
be constructed; also, that the arms and ammunition found 
in Paraguay shall be divided among the allied powers. 

In order to fully understand well these stipulations, it will 
be necessary to explain the social, political and geographical 
position of Paraguay. 

The said nation has never governed itself; from a colony 
it passed without transition to the dictatorship of Dr. Fran- 
cia, whose administration is to this day continued by his 
successors. 

The people is a nation of passive serfs, who possess noth- 
ing of their own, who work for the owner of the soil, who 
fight and die without knowing for whom or for what, when 
the owner orders them to do so. 

They have no men who are fit to be administrators, and 
are ignorant of their own rights, as well as of all the ideas 
which prevail in the present century. They merely under- 
stand to obey, to do what they are told to do with arms in 
hand, and to hate foreigners. 

The Dictator has made every man a soldier. In civilized 
societies the tribute of blood has its limits, yet Lopez has 
dragged the whole of the population to the battlefield. This 
unheard of circumstance may have a result wifhout preced- 
ence in the present century, if the war should be prolonged, 
viz., the annihilation of the whole of the male population of 
Paraguay. 



43 

These simple indications are sufficient to portray what 
may be the position of Paraguay when Lopez falls. 

Suppose it were the sinister intention of the victors to ab- 
sorb that nationality, they could easily do so as soon as they 
have achieved their victory. All that they would have to do 
would be to substitute their own authority for the former, 
and keep the people under the subjugation to which they 
are accustomed. 

But, fortunately for the people of Paraguay, as well bs for 
the international peace of her neighbors, Providence, in 
blinding Lopez, as he blinds every one destined to fall, made 
him constantly offend his three immediate neighbors, and 
was himself the instigator of that triple alliance which will 
put an end to his barbarous and agressive tyranny. 

That league or alliance, created by Lopez, is the best gua- 
rantee for the autonomy of Paraguay, even if no other were 
sufficient. 

Brazil can never sanction the absorption of Paraguay by 
the Argentine Kepublic, nor can the latter permit Brazil to 
absorb Paraguay. The Oriental State, situated between 
Brazil and the Argentine Kepublic, is relatively weak, and 
to her the agrandizement or disequilibrium of her neighbors 
cannot be favorable, nor can she be favorable to the doc- 
trines that " might is right," and that the stronger nation- 
alities should be permitted to divide the smaller ones among 
themselves. 

These different interests will evidently serve as a bond of 
unity and friendship between the allied powers, and at the 
same time make them respect the autonomy and territorial 
integrity of Paraguay. 

If, therefore, the nationality of the said country remains 
intact, the victory of the allied powers will confer on it the 
conditions of a free people. 

This would no doubt be a great change for the people of 
Paraguay. It is natural that such a sudden and absolute 
transition would be productive of intestine agitations and 



44 

difficulties. It would doubtless be a bard and perilous ap- 
prenticeship, which the people of Paraguay would have to 
serve at their own cost. 

In order that those internal difficulties should not destroy 
the Paraguayan nationality, by discouraging and causing her 
to solicit or accept a protectorate which should affect the 
same, the treaty guaranteed, for five years, the independence 
and territorial integrity of the country. 

The said guarantee is "collective," which means to say, 
that, as the interests of the Allies neither permit them to 
annihilate nor dismember Paraguay, the guarantee is perfect- 
ly sincere and efficacious. It is true that the Allies might 
have omitted to give the said guarantees; but, if they did 
not give it, Paraguay would remain exposed, in her auton- 
omy as well in her territorial integrity, to all the perils in 
which her social and political condition might place her; she 
would also be exposed to the extenuation in which the war 
would leave her, and the preponderance which the victory 
would give to Brazil as well as to the Argentine Republic. 
The treaty protects her from those perils, and guarantees her 
autonomy and integrity. And is it against such a guarantee 
that the Peruvian cabinet protests? 

If the Allies had not been sincere in their desire to save 
the Paraguayan nationality, they might have omitted this 
point in the treaty; and each of the allied powers might have 
reserved to itself* liberty of action to absorb or neutralize the 
conquered Republic, or to dispute the possession of her 
amongst themselves on the day of victory. 

Would Peru have been satisfied with such proceedings ? 

The guarantee is limited to five years; and this is another 
chapter in the accusations of the Peruvian cabinet. 

From the circumstance that the guarantee is limited to 
such a period, the aforesaid cabinet draws the conclusion 
that any of the Allies or all of them together have the inten- 
tion of absorbing Paraguay. 

We are almost loth to answer such a supposition. 

If they had the intention of absorbing Paraguay, especially 



45 

if the three allied poivers intended to do so jointly, as the 
Peruvian Government appears to think, it must be confessed 
that the negotiators of the treaty of the Triple- Alliance 
have made a sad mistake. 

Why should they then renounce the favorable moment, 
when the victory had. been achieved, and protect Paraguay 
during five years, thus giving her sufficient time not only to 
get safely out of the many dangers which beset her, but also 
to organize and strengthen her government, recover her forces 
lost during the war, while she would also have learned to 
love and defend her autonomy. 

The Allies do not wish to behold Paraguay disorganized 
and conquered; they will postpone making their claims un- 
til she has recovered her wasted strength, and is able to de- 
fend herself properly and by the help of such natural allies 
on whom she may reckon. This is one of the most start- 
ling revelations contained in the Peruvian protest. 

The same loyal thought which inspired the collective 
guarantee, as already explained, inspired also the bases for 
adjusting the boundaries. Paraguay is litigating with Bra- 
zil and the Argentine Kepublic about her boundaries. It 
would therefore be natural to settle this matter as soon as 
peace should be concluded, arranging at the same time the 
othtr pending questions. 

If Paraguay were once conquered, it would hardly be able 
to dispute the pretensions of the victors; and these pretensions 
might be of such a nature that they cancelled* totally, and in 
its most important consequences, the guarantee granted to 
the autonomy and integrity of the Republic. 

In what manner would it be possible to resist the dangers 
which once threatened Paraguay, and also the future peace 
of all those countries? It can, certainly, only be done by 
restraining at once the ambition which the victory might 
inspire. 

And the only practical means of arriving at such a benefi- 
cial and important result would be, no doubt, to impose no 
other boundaries on the conquered republic of Paraguay 



46 

than those which were proposed to her in the negotiations 
previous to the war, when she was yet intact and strong. 

And this, only this, is what the Triple- Alliance wanted to 
do; hut Peru condemns it! 

Would the Peruvian cabinet prefer that the sword of the 
conquerors should trace the boundaries of conquered Para- 
guay according to their own fancy? 

If this point had also been omitted in the treaty, and 
Paraguay had been exposed to be parcelled out, on pretext 
of adjusting the boundaries, perhaps, then, the Peruvian 
cabinet might have remained silent on that subject. 

The adjustment of boundaries are naturally perpetual, 
and consequently the guarantee which the Allies give to 
them is equally so. 

• If the Peruvian Government were not inclined to condemn 
everything, it would have seen that the 17th article, which 
solely has reference to a permanent adjustment, is calculated 
to avoid the recommencement of a war from want of faith in 
the adjustments which the peace might have been pro- 
ductive of. 

The fortress of Humaita, and others of the same nature 
(and these are the only ones which have been mentioned), is 
and would be a threat and an obstacle to the free navigation 
of the rivers, owing to its position and all its qualities. 

The right of navigating in those rivers rests ( let us use 
the words pronounced by the United States Government) on 
a principle profoundly engraved on the human mind, viz., 
that the ocean is open to ail men, and that the rivers are 
equally so to all river navigators. 

The justice of this natural right was recognized and sanc- 
tioned by Paraguay herself in favor of her population and 
her neighbors, on the banks of her rivers; and at the solicita- 
tion of Brazil and of the Argentine Republics, this right was 
extended to all other nations, and in *such terms that it was 
understood, and with good reason too, that the conditions in 
which the treaties placed the free navigation of the river La 
Plata, and its great tributaries, made it equal to the ocean. 



47 

The paragraph in the treaty which orders the demolition 
of such fortresses is therefore a liberal measure which in- 
terests all nations, Paraguay included, whose commercial 
progress and government revenue are increased thereby, 
while it gives to the empire of Brazil the right of com- 
munication, by river, with her province of Matto Grosso. 

Humaita was a barrier in the common road, to the gate 
of which she herself only had the key. From this many dif- 
ficulties arose, which more than once imperilled the peace of 
those nations. Even if Humaita had not been a menace to 
the safety of the neighboring territories, even if it had not 
been a nest of refuge to all the birds of prey which devastate 
the province of Corrientes, even if painful experience had 
not proved to us that such a fortress (able to contain a whole 
army) was a source of constant danger to the neighboring 
countries, who were obliged to be on a war footing in times 
of peace; it sufficed that it was an obstacle to free naviga- 
tion, and it ought therefore to be demolished and never per- 
mitted to be erected again. 

The Argentine and Oriental Kepublics spontaneously ad- 
mitted the doctrine that the island of Martin Garcia could 
not be an embarrassment to the free navigation, and, there- 
fore, they at once agreed that the said island should remain 
neutral in time of war, and what is more, that it should ap- 
pertain in common to the fiscal offices of the people dwelling 
on the banks of the rivers. 

This is the principle established in the treaties of the Bra- 
zilian Empire and the Argentine Republics with Paraguay 
herself, as well as with England, France, the United States, 
Italy, &c. 

As far as regards the arms and ammunitions, the treaty 
only says that those which were found should be divided 
amongst the conquerors. They had earned those with their 
own blood, and, unfortunately, they had cost them dearly. 
For what reason should the Peruvian cabinet deny the Al- 
lies the legitimate possession of the arms which they had 



48 

wrested from the hands of their enemies in an open and loyal 
war? 

But there was one weighty reason besides which justified 
such a measure. It could never suit the Allies to lay aside 
at once their own arms, and to leave in the hands of their 
fanatic and half-savage enemies an immense quantity of arms 
and ammunition, collected during a period of twenty years, 
in order to rush at once and unexpectedly, like a terrible 
avalanche, on their neighbors. Such a measure would have 
been contrary and dangerous to the commercial, industrial 
and social interests of the Allies, as well as to those of other 
nations. 

But by disposing at once of all those elements of war 
which had been legitimately won, all those countries might 
be enabled, without much delay, to return to peaceful occu- 
pations. 

This does not imply, as the Peruvian protest gratuitously 
observes, that Paraguay should not be permitted to have a 
military force, to preserve order at home, and defend her 
against her enemies, because, in fully recognizing her auton- 
omy, one must, of course, at the same time, recognize her 
right to have such an armed force as she may consider re- 
quisite. 

She has one already, and the Allies, in accordance with 
their own principles, will agree to her keeping it, and will 
not in future put any difficulties in the way of the Para- 
guayan Government to prevent it from exercising this right, 
which, as a sovereign and independent State, she can do at 
her own will, without limits. Brazil, as well as the Argen- 
tine Kepublic and Oriental State, do not have any other aim; 
nor have they any other interest at heart than that of having 
for a neighbor a well-organized State, which is governed in 
accordance with the civilized doctrines now in general use — 
a State which respects herself, and also knows how to respect 
the legitimate rights and interests of her neighbors. 

But Brazil, the Argentine and Oriental Republics, will 
not and cannot suffer to be continually menaced by the ca« 



49 

pricious will of a despot, who governs at his own pleasure a 
people which he oppresses and keeps in subjugation. 

Let Paraguay regenerate herself, and enter into the enjoy- 
ment of a free system of government, which, in guarantee- 
ing her own rights, also guarantees those of Brazil, the Ar- 
gentine Republic, and the Oriental State, giving to all those 
countries the tranquility which they need for the progressive 
development of their prosperity and greatness. 

We have now finished the analysis which we intended to 
make of the Peruvian protest. It now remains for us to 
offer to the readers a few general observations on the causes 
which we presume have induced the Peruvian Cabinet to act 
in this unexpected manner. 

This matter will be the subject of our third and last 
article. 

in. 

In the foregoing paragraphs we have analyzed, one by one, 
all the accusations made by the Peruvian Government in 
their protest against the treaty of the triple alliance ; and 
how the said government made that protest disdaining all 
amicable explanations. 

From our analysis it may be seen that if the Government 
of Peru had cared to proceed in a proper manner, it might 
easily have obtained such explanations and assurances as 
would at once have satisfied its own scruples and the scruples 
of the American people, of which it has constituted itself the 
organ, and which it supposes to be alarmed. 

But the fact is that the Peruvian Cabinet does not really 
seek explanations; what it seeks is a quarrel. 

It is well known that Chili, Peru and Bolivia desired that 
all America together should make common cause in their war 
against Spain, a war which possibly might have been avoided; 
and that they desired, especially Chili, that the Argentine 
Republics should espouse their cause. 

If these Republics had acceded to the request of Chili, 



50 

their position in the Atlantic would have made them the 
theatre of a war, to which they had not in the least contri- 
buted, and in which none of their interests were concerned. 

Chili, who counted upon having the said war endorsed, 
(may this expression be permitted to us) by the Republics of 
La Plata, was deeply offended because the Republics, not 
only refused to do so, but rejected the principle of antagonism 
which Chili endeavored to establish as a doctrine and a fact 
between Europe and America. * 

From that time Chili and her allies have sought to come in 
contact with the defeated parties of the States of La Plata ; 
and from that contact have imbibed the illusions cherished by 
all such parties. 

Confounding the difficulties which the triple-alliance en- 
countered in the topography of Paraguay, with the prepon- 
derance of Lopez in the actual war, they believed that by 
giving moral support to Paraguay, and thus encouraging the 
defeated parties of the States of La Plata, and inciting them 
to a revolution, they might succeed in nullifying the alli- 
ance, and save Paraguay who, naturally adheres to the antag- 
onism against Europe. 

The nullification of the alliance would satisfy their pride, 
and while they dreamed of the possibility that the Republics 
of the La Plata might yet side with them in their war against 
Spain, (from which these wanted to keep clear) those apos- 
tles of Americanism were flattered by the prospect of territo- 
rial, a la Rosas, aggrandizement. 

Thus Chili was to have Argentine Patagonia which already 
figures on her maps under the name of Oriental Chili. 

Peru dreamt of cancelling her boundary-treaty with Brazil 
and of extending her possessions in the Amazon regions; and 
Bolivia of extending hers at the cost of Paraguay, of the Ar- 
gentine Republics and of Brazil. 

This plan would indeed be a magnificent one, were it not 
founded on delusion. The basis is faulty, viz : that Para- 
guay is to triumph in the present war over the armies of the 
triple- alliance. 



51 

But such dreams and delusions are of no use. Neither 
Chili nor Peru can command these seas, and none of their 
men-of-war will disturb the triple-alliance. 

The war in which Chili and Peru are engaged with Spain, 
their troubles at home, and their financial position, will not 
permit them to earry on a war with us by land. 

The only kind of hostility which they can show towards 
us, is by giving moral support to Lopez, and by animating 
the defeated parties in the Kepublics of La Plata. 
This hostility exists already ; the protest shows it. 
It was for this reason that the Peruvian Cabinet did not 
seek any previous explanations, it was for this reason that 
putting all consideration aside, it published the protest before 
it had been delivered to the governments to which it was 
directed ; and, therefore, the said protest is nothing more 
than an inconsiderate reproduction of the press of Lopez. 

For instance, the America, (mouth-piece of the Para- 
guayan Dictator in the States of La Plata) stated in its num- 
ber of the 13th May ultimo, that the treaty of the triple- 
alliance had decreed the partition of the American Poland, 
and the Peruvian Cabinet, which in the protest aforemention- 
ed, does nothing but support the malignant suggestions and 
suppositions of the Lopez press, repeats seriously that, to 
reduce Paraguay to an American Poland, would be a dis- 
grace, which America could not witness without covering her- 
self with shame. 

We, therefore, repeat that the Peruvian protest is neither 
in fact, nor in form, a diplomatic document. It is purely and 
simply hostility. All that can be said in reply to it is this : 
What right have you to judge of the actions of sovereign and 
independent States, who are only exercising their lawful 
rights in the defence of their own safety, and of their legiti- 
mate and indisputable interests, without offending yours. 

Do you claim to be the personification of America, of that 
immense region divided into so many different States, each 
so perfectly independent of the others ? Is not that personi- 



52 

fication of America which you arrogate to yourself, an usur- 
pation for which you have not even a pretext? 

We do not acknowledge that personification, and we reject 
the international policy which you pretend to establish. We 
do so because your object is to make a Continental American 
war out of a war which exists only between an American and 
an European power, or between two or more American States. 

We regret it also because you would thus create a spirit of 
permanent animosity between Europe and America. 

The war with Spain in which you are engaged, you call, 
even in the protest of which we have been speaking, ivarwith 
Europe ! Alliance for repelling the violent attacks and arro- 
gant pretensions of Europe ! 

We consider that league of yours against Europe detri- 
mental to the most important and essential interests of Amer- 
ica, who receives from the old world laborers, capital, and 
all the benefits of its commerce, industry and scientific 
development. 

We are resolved to be independent, yes, but not only of 
Europe, but also of all American nations, whatever their 
names — be they Chile, Peru, or Bolivia. 

We exact from the European nations only what we exact 
from the American nations, that our absolute and perfect 
independence be respected. 

That American league of yours will never be completed* 
because it is an insensate idea. 

If such a league were established, it would create a 
European league against America, 

You are decidedly compromising the most essential in- 
terests of America, and calling forth perils which did not ex- 
ist before. Because we cannot join you in your mad course, 
you turn against us, but you are at the same time deceiving 
yourselves. 

You cannot save Lopez. The allied armies will overthrow 
his power. You may perhaps create some disturbance on 
the frontiers, but in such case, you will not escape from the 
responsibility which may result therefrom, 



53 

In conclusion, we sincerely desire to remain in peace with 
you. To accomplish this, you have merely to remain tran- 
quil and neutral, which you ought to do, considering that 
none of your legitimate rights or interests have been at- 
tacked. 

Rio de Janeiro, 14th September, 1866. 

With respect to the note of His Excellency, Seiior Taborga, 
Minister of Foreign Relations of the Republic of Bolivia, we 
shall confine ourselves to reproducing, in the following docu- 
ments, the notes which were addressed to him, in answer, by 
the Governments of the Argentine Republic, and of His 
Majesty the Emperor of Brazil : 

NOTE OF THE GOVERNMENT OF BRAZIL TO THAT OF THE 

REPUBLIC OF BOLIVIA. 



{ 



Office of Foreign Affairs, 
Rio de Janeiro, Sept. 15, 1866. 

His Excellency, Don Jos6 R. Taborga, Minister of Foreign 
Relations of Bolivia, in a note dated July 6th, of the present 
year, whose receipt I hereby acknowledge, asks, by order of 
His Excellency, the provisional President, that the Govern- 
ment of Brazil shall declare the genuineness or falsity of the 
text of a treaty of alliance which has been made public 
through the press, said to be formed between Brazil, the 
Argentine Republic and Uruguay. 

The Bolivian Government thus addresses the Government 
of Brazil, because one of the articles of that treaty contains 
certain stipulations concerning boundaries, which appear to 
deprive Bolivia of territory, which she claims, on the right 
bank of the Paraguay. 

In answering Mr. Taborgas, by order of His Majesty the 
Emperor, to whom the said note was presented, I shall con- 
fine myself to a brief declaration, which cannot fail to satisfy 
the Government of Bolivia, as it will show how carefully the 
allies have avoided anything, in their agreements, which 
might injure a friendly nation. 



54 

His Majesty's Government cannot make any declaration 
as to the genuineness or falsity of the treaty which came to 
the knowledge of His Excellency, the President, as it has 
bound itself to preserve the secresy of the treaties formed 
with its allies; but it can and does declare that those treaties 
not only respect ail rights which Bolivia may have in any 
part of the territory on the right bank of the Paraguay, but 
also expressly mentions them. 

The boundaries between Brazil and Bolivia are not yet 
determined on. This question, which has nothing to do with 
the Paraguayan war, and which we shall not attempt to dis- 
cuss on this occasion, cannot and does not receive any detri- 
ment from any of the stipulations of alliance. 

The Imperial Government, I repeat, respects that question 
and hopes that it will be speedily settled; and for its part 
will do everything in its power to bring about an agreement 
which shall satisfy both countries. 

1 have the honor to offer to your Excellency the assurances 
of my highest esteem and most distinguished consideration. 

MofeTiM Francisco Eehein de Andrada. 
To His Excellency, Don Jose R. Taborga, Minister of For- 
eign Relations of the Republic of Bolivia. 

REPLY TO THE BOLIVIAN PROTEST. 



Ministry of Foreign Affairs, \ 



Buenos Ayres, August 18, 1866. 
To his Excellency the Minister of Foreign Affairs 

of the Republic of Bolivia : 

Excellency — I have the honor of replying to your nota 
dated on the 6th of last July, which came to hand yesterday* 
the 17th instant. 

The Argentine Government was surprized by the contents 
of said note, and is convinced that the Government of Boli- 
via will easily recognize the little foundation it had for its 
alarm and consequent proceeding. 



55 

As the treaty of alliance between the Argentine, Brazilian 
and Oriental Governments against that of Paraguay is secret, 
the Argentine Government cannot enter into any discussion 
or consideration of its provisions, nor make any revelation 
with regard to its contents. Nor can the Bolivian Govern- 
ment appeal to said treaty, nor to any publication concerning 
this subject, as it stands at present, to support the idea that 
friendly governments are engaged in plotting to despoil the re- 
public of Bolivia of any territory that belongs to it, under the 
plea of their war with Paraguay. Such a suspicion becomes 
the more unjustifiable and inexplicable from the fact, that the 
Argentine Government signed a treaty of amity, commerce, 
navigation and boundaries with the representative of Bolivia, 
on the 2d clay of May, 1865 — that is, on the day following 
the sisfnins: of the Alliance — and the Argentine Congress has 

OCT (DO 

authorized its ratification. In the Twentieth Article, said 
treaty stipulates that " the boundaries between the Argen- 
tine Republic and Bolivia shall be settled by special treaty 
between the two governments after a commission, to be ap- 
pointed by both, parties, shall have examined the respective 
titles, made the "necessary surveys, and presented the plan or 
plans of the boundary line. Both Governments shall take 
the necessary steps to have this stipulation carried out. In 
the meantime, possession shall give no right to territory 
which shall not have belonged originally to one or the other 
nation." 

If the ratifications of said treaty have not as yet been ex- 
changed, the reason is that the Bolivian Charge requested an 
extension of time, as appears from the protocol annexed. — 
But in order that the Government of Bolivia may be con- 
vinced of its error, I annex hereto copies of the notes ex- 
changed at the time of signing the treaty of alliance between 
the plenipotentiaries of the Government of his Majesty the 
Emperor of Brazil and of the Oriental Republic of Uruguay, 
by which they recognized, as they were bound to do, the 
rights which the republic of Bolivia has to the territory ly- 
ing on the right bank of the Paraguay. The treaty of alliance 



56 

could have no reference whatever to a question of boundaries 
between the Argentine Kepublic and Bolivia, nor between 
the latter and the Empire of Brazil. I have no doubt that 
these explanations will give entire satisfaction to the Govern- 
ment of Bolivia, and that said Government will recognize 
therein an additional proof of the respect which the Argentine 
Republic has for the rights of others, especially when the 
Republic of Bolivia is concerned, for to it she is bound by 
ties of the most fraternal sympathy, and with its valuable 
co-operation she hopes to be able to establish and settle the 
peace and prosperity of both peoples upon a more solid basis. 
Hence, I am pleased to reiterate to your Excellency the as- 
surances of my high and distinguished consideration. 

RUFINO DE ELIZALDE. 









ERRATUM. 


Page. 


LlNS. 


Says : 


Should say: 


13, 


8, 


of 1st May, 


of 23d Jan. 1865, between Chili, Peru, Bolivia 
and Ecuador. 


25, 


18, 


1836, 


1838. 


28, 


15, 


Cubaya, 


Cuyaba. 


29, 


6, 


Paraguyan, 


Paraguayan. 


29, 


19, 


Ley, 


Bey. 


32, 


23, 


Paraguay, 


Uruguay. 


36, 


23, 


the war, and 


the war, Italy occupying Venetia, and 


37, 


24, 


Government did, 


Government of Pern did. 


48, 


24, 


has one already, 


will possess one. 


52, 


8, 


We regret, 


We reject. 



Wherever it may say "Argentine Republics," read Republics of La Plata, 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




015 936 140 8 



